Buddhism teaches to, and expects
from, its followers a certain level of ethical behaviour. The
minimum that is required of the lay Buddhist is embodied in what
is called the Five Precepts (panca sila), the third of
which relates to sexual behaviour. Whether or not homosexuality,
sexual behaviour between people of the same sex, would be breaking
the third Precept is what I would like to examine here.

Homosexuality was known in ancient
India; it is explicitly mentioned in the Vinaya (monastic discipline)
and prohibited. It is not singled out for special condemnation,
but rather simply mentioned along with a wide range of other sexual
behaviour as contravening the rule that requires monks and nuns
to be celibate. Sexual behaviour, whether with a member of the
same or the opposite sex, where the sexual organ enters any of
the bodily orifices (vagina, mouth or anus), is punishable by
expulsion from the monastic order. Other sexual behaviour like
mutual masturbation or interfemural sex, while considered a serious
offense, does not entail expulsion but must be confessed before
the monastic community.

A type of person called a pandaka
is occasionally mentioned in the Vinaya in contexts that make
it clear that such a person is some kind of sexual non-conformist.
The Vinaya also stipulates that pandakas are not allowed
to be ordained, and if, inadvertently, one has been, he is expelled.
According to commentary, this is because pandakas are "full
of passions, unquenchable lust and are dominated by the desire
for sex." The word pandaka has been translated as
either hermaphrodite or eunuch, while Zwilling has recently suggested
that it may simply mean a homosexual. It is more probable that
ancient Indians, like most modern Asians, considered only the
extremely effeminate, exhibitionist homosexual (the screaming
queen in popular perception) to be deviant while the less obvious
homosexual was simply considered a little more opportunistic or
a little less fussy than other 'normal' males. As the Buddha seems
to have had a profound understanding of human nature and have
been remarkably free from prejudice, and as there is not evidence
that homosexuals are any more libidinous or that they have any
more difficulties in maintaining celibacy than heterosexuals,
it seems unlikely that the Buddha would exclude homosexuals per
se from the monastic life. The term pandaka therefore probably
does not refer to homosexuals in general but rather to the effeminate,
self-advertising and promiscuous homosexual.

The lay Buddhist is not required
to be celibate, but she or he is advised to avoid certain types
of sexual behaviour. The third Precept actually says: 'Kamesu
micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.' The word kama
refers to any form of sensual pleasure but with an emphasis on
sexual pleasure and a literal translation of the precept would
be "I take the rule of training (veramani sikkhapadam
samadiyami) not to go the wrong way (micchacara) for
sexual pleasure (kamesu)". What constitutes "wrong"
will not be clear until we examine the criteria that Buddhism
uses to make ethical judgments.

No one of the Buddha's discourses
is devoted to systematic philosophical inquiry into ethics such
as one finds in the works of the Greek philosophers. But it is
possible to construct a criterion of right and wrong out of material
scattered in different places throughout the Pali Tipitaka, the
scriptural basis of Theravada Buddhism. The Buddha questioned
many of the assumptions existing in his society, including moral
ones, and tried to develop an ethics based upon reason and compassion
rather than tradition, superstitions and taboo. Indeed, in the
famous Kalama Sutta he says that revelation (anussana),
tradition (parampara), the authority of the scriptures
(pitakasampada) and one's own point of view (ditthinijjhanakkhanti)
are inadequate means of determining right and wrong.

Having questioned the conventional
basis of morality, the Buddha suggests three criteria for making
moral judgments. The first is what might be called the universalisability
principle - to act towards others the way we would like them to
act towards us. In the Samyutta Nikaya he uses this principle
to advise against adultery. He says: "What sort of Dhamma
practice leads to great good for oneself?... A noble disciple
should reflect like this: 'If someone were to have sexual intercourse
with my spouse I would not like it. Likewise, if I were to have
sexual intercourse with another's spouse they would not like that.
For what is unpleasant to me must be unpleasant to another, and
how could I burden someone with that?' As a result of such reflection
one abstains from wrong sexual desire, encourages others to abstain
from it, and speaks in praise of such abstinence."

In the Bahitika Sutta, Ananda is
asked how to distinguish between praiseworthy and blameworthy
behaviour. He answers that any behaviour which causes harm to
oneself and others could be called blameworthy while any behaviour
that causes no harm (and presumably which helps) oneself and others
could be called praiseworthy. The suggestion is, therefore, that
in determining right and wrong one has to look into the actual
and possible consequences of the action in relation to the agent
and those affected by the action. The Buddha makes this same point
in the Dhammapada: "The deed which causes remorse afterwards
and results in weeping and tears is ill-done. The deed which causes
no remorse afterwards and results in joy and happiness is well-done."
This is what might be called the consequential principle, that
behaviour can be considered good or bad according to the consequences
or effects it has.

The third way of determining right
and wrong is what might be called the instrumental principle,
that is, that behaviour can be considered right or wrong according
to whether or not it helps us to attain our goal. The ultimate
goal of Buddhism is Nirvana, a state of mental peace and purity
and anything that leads one in that direction is good. Someone
once asked the Buddha how after his death it would be possible
to know what was and was not his authentic teaching and he replied:
"The doctrines of which you can say: 'These doctrines lead
to letting go, giving up, stilling, calming, higher knowledge,
awakening and to Nirvana' - you can be certain that they are Dhamma,
they are discipline, they are the words of the Teacher."

This utilitarian attitude to ethics
is highlighted by the fact that the Buddha uses the term kusala
to mean 'skillful' or 'appropriate' or its opposite, akusala,
when evaluating behaviour far more frequently than he uses the
terms punna, 'good', or papa, 'bad'. The other thing
that is important in evaluating behaviour is intention (cetacean).
If a deed is motivated by good (based upon generosity, love and
understanding) intentions it can be considered skillful. Evaluating
ethical behaviour in Buddhism requires more than obediently following
commandments, it requires that we develop a sympathy with others,
that we be aware of our thoughts, speech and actions, and that
we be clear about our goals and aspirations.

Having briefly examined the rational
foundations of Buddhist ethics we are now in a better position
to understand what sort of sexual behaviour Buddhism would consider
to be wrong or unskillful and why. The Buddha specifically mentions
several types of unskillful sexual behaviour, the most common
of which is adultery. This is unskillful because it requires subterfuge
and deceit, it means that solemn promises made at the time of
marriage are broken, and it amounts to a betrayal of trust. In
another passage, the Buddha says that someone practicing the third
Precept "avoids intercourse with girls still under the ward
of their parents, brothers, sisters or relatives, with married
women, with female prisoners or with those already engaged to
another." Girls still under the protection of others are
presumably too young to make a responsible decision about sex,
prisoners are not in a position to make a free choice, while an
engaged woman has already made a commitment to another. Although
only females are mentioned here no doubt the same would apply
to males in the same position.

As homosexuality is not explicitly
mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes
in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume
that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality
is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically
mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is
mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual
act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it
would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when
the two people are of the same gender. Likewise promiscuity, license
and the disregard for the feelings of others would make a sexual
act unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. All the
principles we would use to evaluate a heterosexual relationship
we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In Buddhism we
could say that it is not the object of one's sexual desire that
determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather
the quality of the emotions and intentions involved.

However, the Buddha sometimes advised
against certain behaviour not because it is wrong from the point
of view of ethics but because it would put one at odds with social
norms or because its is subject to legal sanctions. In these cases,
the Buddha says that refraining from such behaviour will free
one from the anxiety and embarrassment caused by social disapproval
or the fear of punitive action. Homosexuality would certainly
come under this type of behaviour. In this case, the homosexual
has to decide whether she or he is going to acquiesce to what
society expects or to try to change public attitudes. In Western
societies where attitudes towards sex in general have been strongly
influenced by the tribal taboos of the Old Testament and, in the
New Testament, by the ideas of highly neurotic people like St.
Paul, there is a strong case for changing public attitudes.

We will now briefly examine the various
objections to homosexuality and give Buddhist rebuttals to them.
The most common Christian and Muslim objection to homosexuality
is that it is unnatural and "goes against the order of nature".
There seems to be little evidence for this. Miriam Rothschild,
the eminent biologist who played a crucial role in the fight to
decriminalize homosexuality in Britain, pointed out at the time
that homosexual behaviour has been observed in almost every known
species of animal. Secondly, it could be argued that while the
biological function of sex is reproduction, most sexual activity
today is not for reproduction, but for recreation and emotional
fulfillment, and that this too is a legitimate function of sex.
This being so, while homosexuality is unnatural in that it cannot
leads to reproduction, it is quite natural for the homosexual
in that for her or him it provides physical and emotional fulfillment.
Indeed, for him or her, heterosexual behaviour is unnatural. Thirdly,
even if we concede that homosexuality "goes against the order
of nature", we would have to admit that so do many other
types of human behaviour, including some religious behaviour.
The Roman Catholic Church has always condemned homosexuality because
of its supposed unnaturalness - but it has long idealized celibacy,
which, some might argue, is equally unnatural. Another Christian
objection to homosexuality is that it is condemned in the Bible,
an argument that is meaningful to those who accept that the Bible
is the infallible word of God, but which is meaningless to the
majority who do not accept this. But while there is no doubt that
the Bible condemns homosexuality, it also stipulates that women
should be socially isolated while menstruating, that parents should
kill their children if they worship any god other than the Christian
God and that those who work on the Sabbath should be executed.
Few Christians today would agree with these ideas even though
they are a part of God's words, and yet they continue to condemn
homosexuality simply because it is condemned in the Bible.

One sometimes hears people say: "If
homosexuality were not illegal, many people, including the young,
will become gay." 'This type of statement reflects either
a serious misunderstanding about the nature of homosexuality or
perhaps a latent homosexuality in the person who would make such
a statement. It is as silly as saying that if attempted suicide
is not a criminal offense then everyone will go out and commit
suicide. Whatever the cause of homosexuality (and there is great
debate on the subject), one certainly does not 'choose' to have
homoerotic feelings in the same way one would, for example, choose
to have tea instead of coffee. It is either inborn or develops
in early childhood. And it is the same with heterosexuality. Changing
laws does not change people's sexual inclinations.

Some have argued that there must
be something wrong with homosexuality because so many homosexuals
are emotionally disturbed. At first there seems to be some truth
in this. In the West, at least, many homosexuals suffer from psychological
problems, abuse alcohol, and indulge in obsessive sexual behaviour.
As a group, homosexuals have a high rate of suicide. But observers
have pointed out that such problems seem to be no more pronounced
amongst African and Asian homosexuals than they are in the societies
in which they live. It is very likely that homosexuals in the
West are wounded more by society's attitude to them than by their
sexual proclivity, and, if they are treated the same as everybody
else, they will be the same as everybody else. Indeed, this is
the strongest argument for acceptance and understanding towards
homosexuals.

Christianity grew out of and owes
much to Judaism with its tradition of fiery prophets fiercely
and publicly denouncing what they considered to be moral laxity
or injustice. Jesus was very much influenced by this tradition,
as have been the Christian responses to public and private morality
generally. At its best, this tradition in Christianity to loudly
denounce immorality and injustice has given the West its high
degree of social conscience. At its worst, it has meant that those
who did not or could not conform to Christian standards have been
cruelly exposed and persecuted. The Buddhist monk's role has always
been very different from his Christian counterpart. His job has
been to teach the Dhamma and to act as a quiet example of how
it should be lived. This, together with Buddhism's rational approach
to ethics and the high regard it has always given to tolerance,
has meant that homosexuals in Buddhist societies have been treated
very differently form how they have been in the West. In countries
like China, Korea and Japan where Buddhism was profoundly influenced
by Confucianism, there have been periods when homosexuality has
been looked upon with disapproval and even been punishable under
the law. But generally the attitude has been one of tolerance.
Matteo Ricci, the Jesuit missionary who lived in China for twenty-seven
years from 1583, expressed horror at the open and tolerant attitude
that the Chinese took to homosexuality and naturally enough saw
this as proof of the degeneracy of Chinese society. "That
which most shows the misery of these people is that no less than
the natural lusts, they practise unnatural ones that reverse the
order of things, and this is neither forbidden by law nor thought
to be illicit nor even a cause for shame. It is spoken of in public
and practiced everywhere without there being anyone to prevent
it." In Korea the ideal of the hwarang (flower boy)
was often associated with homosexuality especially during the
Yi dynasty. In Japan, a whole genre of literature (novelettes,
poems and stories) on the love between samurais and even between
Buddhist monks and temple boys developed during the late mediaeval
period.

Theravada Buddhist countries like
Sri Lanka and Burma had no legal statutes against homosexuality
between consenting adults until the colonial era when they were
introduced by the British. Thailand, which had no colonial experience,
still has no such laws. This had led some Western homosexuals
to believe that homosexuality is quite accepted in Buddhist countries
of South and South-east Asia. This is certainly not true. In such
countries, when homosexuals are thought of at all, it is more
likely to be in a good-humored way or with a degree of pity. Certainly
the loathing, fear and hatred that the Western homosexual has
so often had to endure is absent and this is due, to a very large
degree, to Buddhism's humane and tolerant influence.